Agenda-Item-Number-9-Downtown-Sustainable-Transportation-Grant

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM REPORT FOR MEETING OF: March 3, 2026
=========================================================================================== To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Jane Riley, AICP – Planning Director (interim)
Subject: Downtown Sebastopol “Reimaging the Core” Study Alternatives =========================================================================================== RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Affirm that the City’s primary downtown priorities are safety, walkability, environmental sustainability, and business vitality, and that future street design decisions should advance measurable improvements in these areas.

2. Adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation to advance a preferred downtown street design framework that achieves these priorities by:
a. narrowing portions of Main Street to calm traffic and shorten pedestrian crossing distances, b. retaining on-street parking on Main Street to support local businesses, c. incorporating protected bicycle facilities on McKinley and Petaluma Avenue, and d. establishing a two-way circulation framework for Main Street and Petaluma Avenue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The “Reimagining the Core” effort evaluates how downtown segments of State Route 116 and State Route 12 can better function as both a safe community center and a regional corridor. Funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, the study included approximately 18 months of technical analysis, coordination with Caltrans, and broad community engagement.

Four conceptual alternatives were developed to address safety, circulation, multimodal access, and downtown vitality. Nearly 650 survey responses were received, and more than 1,000 community members participated through workshops, stakeholder meetings, business outreach, and online engagement. Feedback consistently prioritized improved safety, walkability, and a more vibrant downtown environment, while reflecting mixed perspectives on full two-way circulation.

The Planning Commission recommended a hybrid framework that blends the pedestrian and bicycle improvements of Alternative 3 with a two-way circulation structure consistent with Alternative 4. The recommended approach advances traffic calming on Main Street, retains on-street parking to support businesses, incorporates protected bicycle facilities on McKinley and Petaluma Avenue, and establishes a two-way downtown network.

Adopting this framework affirms the City’s priorities of safety, environmental sustainability, and business vitality, while positioning Sebastopol to pursue implementation funding aligned with measurable safety improvements, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, and greenhouse gas reduction outcomes.

BACKGROUND:

Downtown Sebastopol has long functioned as both the heart of the community and a regional transportation corridor. The Sebastopol Downtown Plan was originally adopted in 1990, when SR 116 and SR 12 were already integral components of the downtown street network. Over time, increases in commuting, freight movement, and regional through-traffic have intensified vehicle volumes through the downtown core. This has heightened the Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
1 of 92
tension between the corridor’s state highway function and its role as the City’s primary commercial district and gathering place.

In 2022, the City secured a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (STG) to reevaluate the downtown segments of SR 116 and SR 12. The study area includes Main Street (Burnett Street to McKinley Street), Petaluma Avenue (Burnett Street to McKinley Street), Sebastopol Avenue (Bodega Avenue to Morris Street), and McKinley Street (North Main Street to Laguna Park Way).

The effort responds to documented safety concerns. Sebastopol ranks poorly in statewide crash comparisons among similarly sized California cities, including high rankings in pedestrian-involved crashes across multiple age groups. In 2023, compared to 73 other similarly-sized California cities:
• Sebastopol ranks the worst in overall pedestrian safety (15 to 65 yr) • 4th worst in pedestrian safety (>15 yr)
• 8th worst in pedestrian safety (65+)
• Sebastopol ranks 9th worst overall for all safety categories These findings underscore the need to improve safety conditions for people walking and biking and to rebalance downtown streets toward a safer, more context-sensitive design.

Over approximately 18 months, the City and their consultant, Fehr & Peers, conducted existing conditions analysis, circulation studies, multimodal safety assessments, and coordination with Caltrans. Community engagement included multiple community workshops, business and stakeholder meetings, online digital engagement through the project website, email and social media outreach, and a final survey phase. Across these activities, the City engaged with and received input from more than 1,000 community members.

The following four conceptual alternatives were developed and are included in the attached documentation as presented to the community and Planning Commission.
• Alternate 1: Fine-Tune Today
• Alternate 2: Test the Two-Way
• Alternate 3: Walkable One-Way
• Alternate 4: Totally Two-Way
All alternatives incorporated narrower travel lanes, shorter crossing distances, midblock crossings, traffic calming measures, and protected or separated bicycle facilities. The key differences involved one-way versus two-way circulation, bicycle facility alignment, and parking impacts.

The final survey generated nearly 650 responses. Alternative 3 (Walkable One-Way) received the highest level of support, followed by Alternative 1 (Fine-tune Today), Alternative 4 (Totally Two-Way), and Alternative 2 (Test the Two-Way). Survey comments consistently emphasized improving walkability and safety, supporting downtown vitality, and addressing congestion concerns at the Highway 12/Highway 116 junction. Views on two-way circulation were mixed, with some advocating strongly for restoring two-way travel and others prioritizing pedestrian-focused improvements first.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
2 of 92
At its February 10, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended advancing a hybrid concept that reflects both the community’s preference for the pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Alternative 3 and the interest in two-way vehicle circulation reflected in Alternative 4. Specifically, the Commission recommended carrying forward the lane narrowing, shortened crossings, Main Street on-street parking retention, and protected bicycle facility alignment from Alternative 3, combined with conversion of Main Street and Petaluma Avenue to two-way circulation as described in Alternative 4. In effect, the Commission’s recommendation blends the communitypreferred safety and placemaking elements with the operational framework of a two-way downtown network.

DISCUSSION:

The Planning Commission’s recommended approach advances a hybrid concept that blends the communitysupported safety and placemaking improvements of Alternative 3 with the two-way circulation framework of Alternative 4. The concept reflects extensive public input prioritizing walkability, safety, and downtown vitality, while acknowledging ongoing concerns about congestion and network function.

The proposed framework narrows selected segments of Main Street to shorten pedestrian crossing distances and calm vehicle speeds. On-street parking would be retained on both sides of Main Street to continue supporting local businesses. Adjustments on Petaluma Avenue may be considered as needed to accommodate multimodal improvements and operational refinements.

The design also provides protected, separated bicycle facilities in each direction on McKinley Street and Petaluma Avenue. These facilities enhance comfort and safety for people bicycling and improve connectivity within the downtown network.

In addition, the framework includes conversion of Main Street and Petaluma Avenue to two-way vehicle circulation.

While public feedback reflected both strong support and concern regarding this element, the Planning Commission concluded that the safety and network benefits of a two-way system warrant continued feasibility analysis and design development.

It is important to clarify that none of the alternatives evaluated in this study are intended to resolve traffic congestion associated with the Highway 12/Highway 116 junction. These corridors serve a state highway function and are influenced by regional travel demand beyond the scope of this downtown planning effort.

Identification of a Preferred Alternative will allow staff to proceed with conceptual design, coordination with Caltrans, refinement of operational details, and preparation of implementation strategies.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

Staff’s analysis of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is described below.

Safety Performance
Recognized safety countermeasures, including lane narrowing, shortened pedestrian crossings, midblock crossing opportunities, and protected bicycle facilities. These elements are associated with lower operating speeds, improved yielding behavior, and reduced crash severity — particularly for vulnerable road users.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
3 of 92
Transitioning to a two-way circulation framework further supports safety performance. Multi-lane one-way streets in compact downtown environments are often associated with higher operating speeds and greater crash severity1.

A two-way configuration typically results in more moderate travel speeds, improved driver awareness, and simplified wayfinding. In a context such as Sebastopol’s downtown core — where pedestrian activity, storefront access, and short local trips are prevalent — a two-way system can better align street design with surrounding land use and activity levels. Thisframework allowsthe City to address documented pedestrian safety challengesthrough a cohesive, system-level approach rather than isolated spot improvements.

Environmental Performance and VMT Reduction
State policy increasingly prioritizes reduction of “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) over delay reduction as the primary transportation-related climate metric. A two-way downtown network improves route directness and reduces outof-direction travel, which can lower total VMT. Reduced VMT translates directly into lower carbon dioxide emissions and supports regional greenhouse gas reduction targets.

In addition, high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities encourage short local trips to shift from vehicle travel to active modes. Given Sebastopol’s compact downtown and short trip distances, the opportunity to meaningfully reduce local VMT through design is significant. As well, City Council support for a two-way framework strengthens the City’s ability to demonstrate measurable VMT reduction potential, which is a key scoring factor in competitive state and federal funding programs.

Business and Community Vitality
Downtown vitality depends on access, visibility, and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Retaining on-street parking on Main Street maintains convenience for customers and supports local businesses. Narrowed travel lanes and shorter crossings enhance the pedestrian experience, increasing comfort and dwell time — factors consistently associated with higher retail activity.

Two-way circulation can improve storefront visibility by allowing businesses to be approached from multiple directions and by reducing the perception of downtown as a pass-through corridor. A more intuitive and navigable street network supports visitor orientation, reinforces downtown identity, and enhances the City’s role as a destination rather than a bypass route.

Grant Competitiveness and Implementation Strategy
State and federal transportation funding programs increasingly prioritize projects that demonstrate:
• Documented safety improvements;
• Measurable VMT reduction;
• Climate and greenhouse gas benefits;
• Active transportation enhancements; and
• Community and economic revitalization outcomes.

1 Federal Highway Administration Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-17-098 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17098/003.cfm? Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
4 of 92
Consistency with Adopted Plans and Ongoing Initiatives
The recommended framework is consistent with and advances multiple adopted and ongoing City initiatives. It supports the City’s Active Transportation Plan by prioritizing protected bicycle infrastructure and improved pedestrian crossings. It aligns with climate and greenhouse gas reduction goals by emphasizing VMT reduction and mode shift. It reinforces Complete Streets principles and context-sensitive design within the downtown core.

The project also complements ongoing and anticipated planning efforts, including the City’s Priority Development Area (PDA) work and the Sebastopol Commons initiative, both of which envision a more walkable, mixed-use, and community-oriented downtown. Improving multimodal access and rebalancing the street network strengthens the City’s capacity to accommodate a vibrant mix of land uses and community spaces in the downtown core.

Conclusion
All of the alternatives evaluated would advance the community’s goals for safety, walkability, and downtown vitality. However, the Planning Commission’s recommended hybrid framework offers the strongest alignment with measurable safety improvements, VMT reduction, and economic vitality outcomes, positioning the City most competitively for state and federal grant funding.

Next Steps
• City Council action tonight will establish the Preferred Alternative, which will be developed into a conceptual design and incorporated into the draft final report for this study. • Staff and the consultant team will prepare a conceptual design and draft report, including a funding and implementation strategy identifying potential grant opportunities, phased approaches, and next steps to advance design and construction.
• The Planning Commission will review the conceptual design and draft report, and provide feedback prior to finalization. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 24, 2026. • The draft report and conceptual design will then return to City Council for review and direction to finalize the report and formally conclude the study. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 21, 2026. • If the City Council selects a preferred Alternative that is not one of the four Alternatives already studied, direct staff to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Consultant, not to exceed $10,000 to perform the additional studies required (see Fiscal Impact section).

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

As discussed above and summarized below, community outreach has been a central component of this planning effort. Engagement activities included:
• Multiple community workshops
• Business and stakeholder meetings
• Online engagement through the project’s digital engagement platform & website • Email and newsletter outreach
• Social media and local media promotion
• Outreach to business owners and Chamber of Commerce representatives • A final survey phase generating nearly 650 responses
Across these activities, more than 1,000 community members were engaged. Key themes consistently included:

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
5 of 92
• Strong prioritization of walkability and safety
• Desire for a more vibrant, people-focused downtown
• Concern regarding congestion at the Highway 12/Highway 116 junction • Mixed perspectives on two-way circulation
• Interest in thoughtful, phased implementation
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public comment received prior to the preparation of this Staff Report is attached. Additional public comments received prior to the City Council hearing will be distributed at the meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Consultant time required to develop conceptual design plans of the preferred alternative and prepare a written report with a funding and implementation plan is covered by the Sustainable Communities Grant (STG). Staff time required to prepare the agenda item is covered within existing budgeted salaries.

If the City Council selects a preferred alternative that has not already been studied under the STG Grant, including but not limited to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, additional consultant costs would be incurred, including costs to study modifications to circulation, turning movements, lane configurations, or other operational elements beyond those evaluated in the four studied alternatives. The STG grant does not include funding for analysis beyond the studied scenarios. The scope of any additional work would depend on the Council’s direction but is estimated to be between $7,500 and $10,000. These overages would need to be covered by the Planning Department budget, which has adequate salary savings to absorb the additional costs. This item is scheduled for Budget Subcommittee review for March 2, 2026.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS:

Goal 1: Community Vitality Enhance Sebastopol as a great place to live that values community health and wellbeing. Preserve Sebastopol’s unique character.

Goal 2: Public safety Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

Goal 3: Infrastructure Maintaining High Quality Infrastructure, Facilities and Services includes repairing/replacing outdated city facilities, improving streets, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.

1. Includes Caltrans Grant – Sustainable Transportation

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:

Goal LU 1: Maintain Sebastopol as a Unique, Charming, and Environmentally Sensitive Small Town that Provides Residents, Businesses, and Visitors with Opportunities to Enjoy a High Quality of Life.

Goal LU 7: Emphasize and Advance Sebastopol’s Role as a Market and Service Center for the West County by Providing for a Vibrant Downtown, Diversified Uses, and Community Services and Facilities.

Goal CIR 1: Provide a Transportation System that Promotes the Use of Alternatives to the Single-Occupant Vehicle and Facilitates the Efficient and Environmentally Responsible Movement of People and Goods Within and Through the City of Sebastopol.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
6 of 92
Goal CIR 2: Maintain and Expand a Safe and Efficient Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network that Connects Neighborhoods with Key Destinations to Encourage Travel by Non-Automobile Modes while also Improving Public Health.

Goal CIR 3: Coordinate Circulation Facilities with Land Use and Development Patterns to Create an Environment that Encourages Walking, Bicycling, and Transit Use.

Goal CIR 5: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Order to Reduce Congestion and Help Achieve Regional Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

Goal CIR 6: Maintain Parking Requirements and Practices that Complement the Desired Land Use Pattern while Minimizing Neighborhood Impacts.

Goal COS 6: Conserve, Protect, and Enhance Trees and Native Vegetation.

Goal COS 7: Improve Air Quality in Sebastopol and Reduce Air Quality Impacts from Future Development.

Goal COS 8: Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from City Operations and Community Sources.

Goal CD 1: Preserve and Enhance Sebastopol’s Unique Character, Design, and Sense of Place as a Small, Compact Town.

Goal CD 2: Promote and Enhance the Downtown as a Safe, Active, and Attractive Environment.

Goal EV 1: Encourage Economic Development that Broadens the City’s Employment Base, Attracts High-Quality Jobs, Provides Services and Goods that Reflect the City’s Values, and Increases the City’s Tax Base.

Goal EV 3: Protect and Increase the Economic Vitality of the City’s Main Economic Sectors: Downtown and the Northern and Southern Gateways.

Goal EV 4: Emphasize Sebastopol's Role as a Market, Service, and Tourism Hub for the West County and as a Gateway to the Coast.

Goal EV 5: Enhance the City’s Existing Businesses, Encourage Start-up Businesses, and Support Home-based Businesses.

RESTATED RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Staff recommends that the City Council:

3. Direct staff to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Consultant, not to exceed $10,000 for additional study as outlined above (only needed if the Preferred Alternative is other than Alternatives 1- 4).

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:

1. The City Council could select one of the other studied Alternatives to move forward

2. The City Council could not select any Alternative to move forward, effectively ending this planning effort (This Option is not recommended due to the potential requirement to return grant funds) Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
7 of 92
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Alternatives Package describing proposed improvements, including what is consistent across all alternatives, and the specific differences of each alternative, and an evaluation metric for each alternative showing how each alternative compares to the existing condition. Generally, the more apples in the score, the better the alternative addresses the issue/metric.

2. Potential Cross Sections for Each Alternative in Select Locations. Each subject to refinement as part of the conceptual design and future final design effort.

3. Summary of Survey Results as of Monday, February 2, 2026, including a summary of written feedback shared as part of the survey.

4. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from February 10, 2026.

5. Community Comments Received by Staff a compilation of all comments received by City staff related to the survey.

6. Planning Commission Staff Report from February 10, 2026.

APPROVALS:

Department Head Approval: Approval Date: _2/26/26__
CEQA Determination (Planning): Approval Date: _2/24/26__ The proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 21080.17, and 21080.66 in that there is no possibility that the selection of an alternative to study further will have significant effects on the environment, and no further environmental review is required at this time.

Administrative Services/Financial Approval: Approval Date: _2/26/26__ Costs authorized in City Approved Budget: ☐ Yes ☐ No  N/A (Future budget impacts are not known at this time)
Account Code (if applicable) ___________________________ City Attorney Approval: Approval Date: _2/26/26__
City Manager Approval: Approval Date: _2/26/26__
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
8 of 92
2 3
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Key
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Sebastopol is embarking on an exciting
journey to reimagine our downtown!
The Reimagining the Core project is all
about transforming the heart of our city,
where State Routes 116 and 12 meet, into
a place that feels safer, more welcoming,
and easier to navigate whether you are
walking, biking, driving, or taking transit.

Since our original Downtown Plan was
created back in 1990, a lot has changed.

We have seen more traffic, more trucks
passing through, and longer commutes
becoming part of daily life. In 2013,
community members brought in experts
from the American Institute of Architects
to share ideas for improvement, and
now, thanks to a Caltrans Sustainable
Communities Grant awarded in 2022, we
are taking the next step forward.

We aim to create a vibrant Main Street
that reflects Sebastopol’s unique
character and community values, creates
inviting public spaces where people want
to linger, prioritizes safe and comfortable
travel for those walking and biking, and
supports thriving local businesses, while
balancing the needs of local access and
regional traffic circulation.

This project is about listening to what our
community needs and creating a vision
that works for everyone. We have heard
that downtown Sebastopol should be a
place where it is comfortable and safe
to walk to your favorite coffee shop or
restaurant, bike to meet friends, or stroll
with your family. At the same time, we
are committed to supporting California’s
climate goals by making it easier for
people to choose alternatives to driving
alone. By reducing regional through-traffic
impacts and working closely with our local
businesses, we are building a downtown
that is vibrant, accessible, and ready for
the future.

A VISION FOR DOWNTOWN
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
9 of 92
5 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
This study builds upon previous and
ongoing planning and design efforts,
including adopted plans, programs,
projects, and developments that together
form the set of baseline improvements
included in every alternative. Building
on this foundation, this study identifies a
suite of streetscape enhancements and
safety enhancements that will fulfill the
goal to further improve access, safety,
and mobility for people walking and
biking in and around downtown.

There are four alternative designs for
implementing these enhancements.

While all four alternatives share common
objectives, they differ primarily in
how traffic circulation is organized,
where protected bicycle facilities are
accommodated, and the degree to which
additional pedestrian space can be
created to help realize the community’s
vision for a more walkable, connected,
and vibrant Sebastopol.

However, all four alternatives share the
baseline improvements and a number
of streetscape and safety features in
common. These features and their
placement within each alternative are
shown on this map, and are illustrated
in more detail within each alternative on
subsequent pages.

D
C
A
B
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
Key New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop

BASELINE IMPROVEMENTS
These are improvements already planned
for and committed to in previous planning
studies, approved developments, and
current infrastructure design projects, and
include several spot improvements for
improved pedestrian and bicycle access,
safety, and mobility: A
The Piazza Hotel project proposes a
new mid-block crosswalk between the
proposed hotel and the Plaza. B
The City is currently designing a new
flashing pedestrian beacon for the
intersection of Main and Burnett Streets. C
The Sebastopol Active Transportation
Plan (ATP), adopted in January 2025,
calls for an extension of the Joe Rodota
Trail to conect the existing trailhead to
Willow Street, as well as other bike blvd
treatments along Willow and High Streets. D
The City’s ATP also calls for improvemed
pedestrian connections along McKinley
Street to connect Main Street to the
Barlow, and other locations of interest.

SAFETY AND STREETSCAPE

ENHANCEMENTS SHARED BY

ALL FOUR ALTERNATIVES
These specific safety and streetscape
enhancements are shared by all four
alternatives: E
Plaza improvements, which are
documented in the next pages. F
Remove the slip lane at the intersection
of Petaluma and Sebastopol Avenues to
create a permanent parklet. G
Install midblock crossing on Main Street
with treatments to provide safe crossing
to slow down traffic and create pedestrian
friendly blocks. H
Improve connections Joe Rodota
Trail to Ives Park via curb extensions,
improvement crossing treatments. J
Establish Burnett Street as a Bike Blvd
by prioritizing bikes, slowing down cars,
and supporting additional east west bike
connections.

E
F
G
H
J
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
10 of 92
6 7
Sebastopol’s central park, referred to
as “the Plaza”, sits right in the heart of
downtown Sebastopol and serves as our
community’s living room - a place where
neighbors gather for concerts, festivals,
farmers markets, and simply enjoying a
beautiful day outdoors. This green space
connects directly to our downtown shops
and restaurants, making it a natural hub for
both locals and visitors.

As we reimagine downtown mobility, there
are opportunities to make the Plaza even
more accessible and inviting. The parking
area can be converted to a shared street
that could be programmed with expanded
seating, lounging areas, dining, and food
truck accommodations to bring more
activity to the area.

Adjacent improvements could include
safer, more visible crosswalks and
pedestrian pathways leading to the park,
better bike parking facilities, enhanced
lighting for evening events, and upgraded
park amenities that encourage people
to linger longer. Creating seamless,
comfortable connections between the
park and surrounding businesses would
help the Plaza truly anchor our downtown
as a destination where people want to
spend time, not just pass through.

Area closest to buildings
used for cafe seating
Additional seating
and activations at
Central Park
McKinley St
N
Main St
Hwy 12
Petaluma Ave
Convert parking areas
into shared streets that
would be shared with
pedestrians, bicyclists,
and slow-moving cars,
with the option to be
temporary closed for
special events. Replace
asphalt with pavers.

Large scale canopy over parking
area with food trucks similar to
Mitote Food Parks in Santa Rosa
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: THE PLAZA
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
11 of 92
8 9
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: JOE RODOTA TRAIL
The Joe Rodota Trail is an 8.5-mile paved
pathway that connects Sebastopol to
Santa Rosa, following what was once the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad corridor.

This beloved trail has become one of our
region’s most important car-free routes,
used daily by commuters, recreational
cyclists, families out for a walk, and
runners enjoying the scenery. For many
residents, it is the safest and most
pleasant way to travel between the two
cities without getting in a car. To maximize
the trail’s potential as a true alternative
transportation route, improvements could
focus on better connections between the
trail and downtown Sebastopol, making it
easier and more intuitive to transition from
the trail to Main Street businesses.

N
Main St
Burnett St
Abbott Ave
Petaluma
Ave
Existing Joe Rodota Trail
Connection east
towards Santa Rosa
Enhance bike/ped connection
through parking lot
elements and safety beacons
Connection west
towards Ives Park
Connection west
towards Ives Park
Crossing enhancement
Existing terminus of the Joe Rodota Trail, looking west This might include:
• clearer wayfinding signage
• increased landscaping for shade and
ecological benefits
• dedicated bike lanes connecting the
trail to downtown destinations
• improved trail surface maintenance
• better lighting in key areas
• additional access points that reduce
barriers for people entering or leaving
the trail
By strengthening these connections, the
Joe Rodota Trail couldplay a large role
in reducing vehicle trips and supporting
our vision of a more walkable, bikeable
community.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
12 of 92
10 11
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT: SEPARATED PROTECTED BIKEWAYS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT: CURB EXTENSIONS AND BULBOUTS A Class IV bikeway (separated bikeway)
is a bike lane that includes a physical
separation between the separated
bikeway and the throughvehicular traffic.

The separation may include, but is not
limited to grade separation, flexible
posts, barriers, curb, or on-street parking.

Caltrans provides design standards and
guidelines, such as Design Information
Bulletins (DIB) 89 and 94, for Class IV
bikeways.

Curb extensions narrow the roadway
visually and physically, making crossings
shorter and safer for people walking. They
also create space for things like benches,
street trees, plants, and other street
amenities. Curb extensions can be used
on many types of streets—downtown,
neighborhood, or residential.
“Curb extension” is a general term that
can include a number of specific designs
incorporated in planned improvements in
Downtown Sebastopol.

One-Way Lanes
One-way separated bike lanes are located
on either side of the street alongside
the direction of vehicle travel. One-way
protected bike lanes can connect to
shared lanes, standard bike lanes, or
protected intersections. In areas where
cars merge across the bike lane, drivers
must yield to people biking. Green paint,
dashed lane markings, and signs help
make this clearer.

Two-Way Lanes
Two-way separated bike lanes have both
directions of bike travel located on either
side of the street. Two-way protected
bike lanes also use physical barriers.

Because bikes travel in both directions,
intersections and driveways require extra
care. Improving sight lines, slowing turning
vehicles, and using clear markings all help
increase safety
Curb extension at intersection
Midblock curb extension
Standard curb extensions are commonly
used at intersections of roadways with
on-street parking, and extend the curb
outwards to the edge of the parking lane.

This improves the visibility of people at the
intersection and shortens crosswalks.

Midblock curb extensions narrow the
roadway between intersections and may
include bike cut-throughs. They are often
placed in conjunction with mid-block
pedestrian crossings.

Photo credits: Richard Drdul
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
13 of 92
12 13

EVERY ALTERNATIVE

IMPROVES SAFETY AND

COMFORT FOR PEOPLE

WALKING AND BIKING IN

AND AROUND DOWNTOWN

HOW DO THE ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTS DIFFER?
While many improvements and safety
features are consistent across all
alternative concepts, they are different in
the directionality of the traffic lanes and
the location of the proposed protected
bikeways.

Alternative 1: Fine Tune Today
Maintains the existing one-way traffic
pattern (Main St SB, Petaluma Ave NB) with
Class IV protected bike lanes in the same
direction as traffic on each street. This
option fine-tunes current operations while
keeping familiar vehicle and bike flows.

Alternative 2: Test the Two Way
Converts Main St to two-way traffic while
Petaluma Ave remains one-way. Petaluma
Ave features Class IV protected bike
lanes in both directions, improving bike
connectivity while testing two-way traffic
for vehicles on Main St.

Alternative 3: Walkable One Way
Keeps one-way traffic on both streets
(Main St SB, Petaluma Ave NB) but
provides two-way Class IV protected bike
lanes on Petaluma Ave, prioritizing safe
and convenient bike travel along this
corridor.

Alternative 4: Totally Two Way
Converts both streets to two-way traffic
and includes Class IV protected bike lanes
in both directions on Main St, creating a
fully two-way network for vehicles and
a high-quality, two-way bike corridor for
enhanced connectivity.

The alternatives are presented in greater
detail in the following pages. All four
include a common set of safety and
streetscape improvements recommended
regardless of which option is ultimately
selected. In addition to the specific
common features explored previously
such as improvements to the Plaza, each
alternative also has shared design features
intended to slow vehicle speeds, address
known safety issues at intersections, and
create a more comfortable walking and
biking experience throughout downtown.

These shared improvements include
continuous, separated, protected bike
facilities; lane width reductions to slow
vehicle speeds; curb extensions and
bulbouts at intersections to reduce
crossing distance, increase space for
people walking and biking, and improve
sightlines; and traffic signal phasing and
timing changes to promote low speed
traffic, bike and pedestrian safety access
and circulation. Each alternative also
provides opportunities for streetscape
improvements such as street trees and
seating.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
14 of 92
15 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 1: FINE-TUNE TODAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating parklet seating
bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 1
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
large bulbout distinctive public art
bulbout seating
Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
maintains the existing one-way circulation
pattern downtown while reducing the
number of travel lanes in each direction.

Safety is improved through fully protected
bicycle facilities and other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through optimized signal timing
and adjustments designed to minimize
motorist delay.

2.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
TOTAL
11 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
15 of 92
17 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 2: TEST THE TWO-WAY
vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 2
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

It converts Main Street to two-way
circulation with turn pockets provided
only where turns are permitted, and the
design is envisioned to function with
minimal changes should the City choose
to revert to the existing one-way couplet
in the future. Safety is improved through
fully protected bicycle facilities and other
targeted measures, including shorter
turn pockets. Traffic operations and
overall flow are refined through signal
timing optimized to the extent feasible to
support efficient traffic movement.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4

3.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL
14 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
16 of 92
19 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 3: WALKABLE ONE-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout large bulbout distinctive public art parallel seating parklet seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees two-row street trees bike parking
small dining parklet full dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 3
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
maintains the existing one-way circulation
pattern downtown while reducing
the number of travel lanes in each
direction. Safety is improved through
fully protected bicycle facilities shifted
entirely to Petaluma Avenue, maximizing
opportunities for wider sidewalks and
more robust streetscape amenities in the
core of downtown. Traffic operations and
overall flow are refined through optimized
signal timing and adjustments designed
to minimize motorist delay.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support

3.5 / 4

3.5 / 4
3 / 4

1.5 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

14.5 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
17 of 92
21 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 4: TOTALLY TWO-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating
bike parking
pedestrian street fair
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 4
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
bulbout seating
large bulbout distinctive public art
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
converts both Main Street and Petaluma
Avenue to two-way circulation with turn
pockets provided only where turns are
permitted. Safety is improved through fully
protected bicycle facilities consolidated
on Main Street along with other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through signal timing optimized
to the extent feasible to support efficient
traffic movement.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4
3 / 4

2.5 / 4
1 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

12.5 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
18 of 92
2 3
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Since our original Downtown Plan was
created back in 1990, a lot has changed.

A VISION FOR DOWNTOWN
Parking
70' 74' 50' 60' 52'
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
19 of 92
15 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 1: FINE-TUNE TODAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating parklet seating
bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 1
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Safety is improved through fully protected
bicycle facilities and other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through optimized signal timing
and adjustments designed to minimize
motorist delay.

2.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
TOTAL
11 Key
Parking
70' 74' 50' 60' 52'
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
20 of 92
17 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 2: TEST THE TWO-WAY
vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 2
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4

3.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL
14 Key
Parking
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) 70' 74' 50' 60' 52'

A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
21 of 92
19 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 3: WALKABLE ONE-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout large bulbout distinctive public art parallel seating parklet seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees two-row street trees bike parking
small dining parklet full dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 3
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
maintains the existing one-way circulation
pattern downtown while reducing
the number of travel lanes in each
direction. Safety is improved through
fully protected bicycle facilities shifted
entirely to Petaluma Avenue, maximizing
opportunities for wider sidewalks and
more robust streetscape amenities in the
core of downtown. Traffic operations and
overall flow are refined through optimized
signal timing and adjustments designed
to minimize motorist delay.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support

3.5 / 4

3.5 / 4
3 / 4

1.5 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

14.5 Key
Parking
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) 70' 74' 50' 60' 52'

A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
22 of 92
21 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 4: TOTALLY TWO-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating
bike parking
pedestrian street fair
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 4
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
bulbout seating
large bulbout distinctive public art
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
converts both Main Street and Petaluma
Avenue to two-way circulation with turn
pockets provided only where turns are
permitted. Safety is improved through fully
protected bicycle facilities consolidated
on Main Street along with other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through signal timing optimized
to the extent feasible to support efficient
traffic movement.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4
3 / 4

2.5 / 4
1 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

12.5 Key
Parking
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) 70' 74' 50' 60' 52'

A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
23 of 92
Summary of Survey Results
As of 3pm on Monday, February 3, 2026, 196 votes have been cast on the survey. Approximately 35 percent of respondents voted for Alternative 3 (Walkable One-Way), approximately 28 percent of respondents voted for Alternative 4 (Totally Two-Way), and about 19 percent of respondents voted for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Survey Outreach and Promotion
Outreach to promote the online survey included the following activities:
• Email announcement to a local stakeholder email list
• Email announcement to the full project email list
• News article posted on the City website
• E-blasts distributed via the City website to relevant subscriber lists • Inclusion in the City’s January/February newsletter, both emailed and printer with water bill mailer
• Social media posts on City channels, including Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor • Press release distributed to local media outlets, including the Sebastopol Times and the Press Democrat
• Flyer distribution downtown and to local businesses
Overall Summary of Responses
The dataset reflects a large volume of survey responses in which commenters selected one of four conceptual alternatives for downtown circulation and streetscape, with many responses indicating a preference without additional explanation. Where reasoning was provided, comments focused heavily on:
• Walkability and downtown vitality
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
24 of 92
• Safety for people walking and biking
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Business access and parking availability
A recurring theme across all alternatives is frustration with existing congestion related to the Highway 12 / Highway 116 junction and skepticism that any option fully resolves regional through-traffic.

Broadly, responses show a clear philosophical split between those prioritizing vehicle throughput and minimizing congestion (often favoring the existing one-way configuration or limited change) and those prioritizing walkability, placemaking, and reduced vehicle dominance downtown (often favoring enhanced pedestrian space even at the expense of traffic capacity). Many commenters explicitly note that Sebastopol functions as a regional crossroads, creating tension between local downtown goals and regional traffic realities.

Several commenters express concern about two-way conversions, particularly related to left-turn conflicts, emergency access, driveway conflicts, and traffic congestion, while others view two-way streets as essential for business visibility, intuitive navigation, and restoring a small-town feel. A subset of respondents favors testing changes temporarily before committing to full build-out, citing uncertainty in traffic modeling and desire for data-driven outcomes. Some of the reasoning for votes that were provided as part of the survey are summarized below.

Alternative 1: Fine-Tune Today
Supporters generally favor maintaining the existing one-way configuration, citing historical precedent, safer and smoother vehicle flow, fewer left-turn conflicts, and concerns that lane reductions or two-way conversions would worsen congestion. Many commenters emphasize that downtown is the intersection of two highways and argue that traffic movement must remain the priority. Several also prefer this option for bicycle safety, noting a preference for bike lanes provided on both Main Street and Petaluma Avenue, and fewer conflict points. Opposition to other alternatives often centers on parking loss, emergency vehicle access, and skepticism of pedestrian-focused features given current traffic volumes.

Alternative 2: Test the Two-Way
Commenters supporting this option often describe it as a compromise or pilot approach, appreciating the ability to revert if conditions worsen. Reasoning includes improving intuitiveness, potentially benefiting businesses, and balancing walkability with traffic needs. Several respondents express interest in experimenting before committing public funds, especially given uncertainty around traffic impacts. However, even supporters frequently note that it does not fully solve congestion and call for broader solutions (e.g., roundabouts, bypass routing, or regional traffic management). Some bicycle advocates expressed skepticism about the proposed two-way cycle track on Petaluma Avenue and limited bicycle connections to Main Street.

Alternative 3: Walkable One-Way
This alternative receives strong qualitative support from commenters prioritizing walkability, pedestrian comfort, downtown vitality, and safety. Supporters emphasize wider sidewalks, outdoor seating, street trees, protected bike lanes, and a calmer downtown environment. Some argue that one-way traffic reduces conflicts and is safer for pedestrians and cyclists than two-way operation.

Critics, however, question whether through-traffic can realistically be accommodated through Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
25 of 92
reduced lanes and worry about congestion spillback, parking loss, and access challenges given Sebastopol’s role as a regional connector. Some bicycle advocates expressed skepticism about the proposed two-way cycle track on Petaluma Avenue and limited bicycle connections to Main Street.

Alternative 4: Totally Two-Way
Supporters of full two-way conversion argue it would reduce confusion, improve business access on both Main Street and Petaluma Avenue, restore a traditional downtown feel, and potentially improve traffic flow by dispersing movements. Some see two-way streets as a way to reclaim local control from Caltrans and improve placemaking flexibility, such as closing temporarily closing Main Street for periodic events. Opponents raise concerns about left-turn delays or restrictions, driveway conflicts, potential increase for conflict points, perceived bike safety concerns, and gridlock, particularly during peak periods and school traffic. Several note past experience with two-way operations as evidence against reverting.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
26 of 92
1 City of Sebastopol
Incorporated 1902
Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-823-6167
707-823-1135 (Fax)
www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us

UNAPPROVED DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2026
PLANNING COMMISSION:

The notice of the meeting was posted on February 5, 2026.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Fernandez called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

Present: Chair Fernandez,
Vice-Chair Koelemeijer,
Commissioner Fritz,
Commissioner Harper

Absent: Commissioner Kanzler
Staff: Jane Riley, Contract Planning Director
Tori Henkel, Permit Technician
Zulema Higgins, Admin Technician
**Chair Fernandez postponed item 6B to the next regular Planning Commission meeting.

3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
a. 8100 Valentine Ave project
b. Grocery Outlet
c. Housing Issues like The Canopy prices, Woodmark, and traffic issues d. Lack of the Community understanding what the City needs e. Grocery Outlet

4. STATEMENTS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 2026
Vice-Chair Koelemeijer made a motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2026, as submitted.

Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
27 of 92
2 VOTE: 4-0-0-1
Ayes: Commissioners Harper, Fritz, Vice-Chair Koelemeijer, Chair Fernandez Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Commissioner Kanzler

6. REGULAR AGENDA:

A. Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Grant “Reimaging the Core”, the goal of this item is for the Planning Commission to identify a preferred alternative to recommend to the City Council for their March 3, 2026, meeting. Once the preferred alternative is agreed upon, the consultant will develop conceptual design plans, a draft, and a final report for the Planning Commission and City Council in April of 2026.

Commissioner Fritz made a motion to move forward with Alternative 4, a “totally two-way” system of vehicular circulation using the pedestrian improvements and design of Alternative 3 with both bike facilities and a two way cycle track on Petaluma Avenue, keeping parking on both sides of Main Street, improved pedestrian crossing infrastructure, with the potential of the removal of parking on Petaluma Ave along the plaza block.

Vice-Chair Koelemeijer seconded the motion.

VOTE: 4-0-0-1
Ayes: Commissioners Harper, Fritz, Vice-Chair Koelemeijer, Chair Fernandez Noes:

Abstain:

Absent: Commissioner Kanzler
B. Discussion of Creation of Parks Commission Ad Hoc Committee was postponed to the next regular meeting.

7. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES: None

8. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT was given by staff.

9. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Fernandez adjourned the meeting of the Sebastopol Planning Commission at 8:55 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on February 24, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
28 of 92
From: Aamil Rick Targow
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2026 5:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Two-way traffic disaster

Dear City Council Members:

This is oppose the two-way recommendation from the Planning Commission.

First, of course, returning to two-streets downtown was opposed by a clear majority of respondents to the plans.

Second, however, I would remind the Council that before the switch to one-way streets, considerably less traffic was making its way though town.

Third, there are currently significant backups in the North- and South-bound directions in heavy-traffic times. I live on Eleanor Ave., and so to leave or return to my house, I must either turn onto or off of Petaluma, or attempt to cross it. Yesterday, at 3:30 p.m., I was heading to the City and saw the Northbound traffic stop-and-go all the way back to Handline. Now imagine that traffic if, rather than three lanes the last block before 12 (right turn/through/through-and-left-turn), there were only two lanes to handle left turns, rightturns, and through traffic. And how difficult would it be for me and my neighbors to cross Petaluma when there were two lanes of traffic, and left-turning cars at the intersections to boot.

Now, it is perhaps true that Petaluma would have much less traffic if Main Street were twoway, but that merely shifts the problem to the Southbound traffic coming into town, for which there is no parallel road to relieve the congestion, and which now often backs up in the late afternoon for much of the way up the hill, even to Murphy or above. At least there are three lanes in the last block before 12, but imagine if there were only two, with all of the left-turning traffic onto 12 occupying one of those two lanes, leaving the other for through travel and right-turners.

I saw what happened to the traffic on Petaluma when the little-used bike lane eliminated one of the car lanes. Please don't make things worse with the Planning Commission's illconsidered recommendation. Follow the guidance of the majority of your constituents who responded to the survey.

Thank you.

Aamil Targow
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
29 of 92
From: wdr2
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 7:52 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Main Street

Dear Members of the Sebastopol City Council,

Please do not waste too much of your meeting time or any of the city staff’s time exploring two-way traffic on Main Street. As a friend of mine who was once mayor of Sebastopol told me, this topic has already come up countless times in the past and, no matter what kind of proposal is developed, CalTrans will never approve it without a viable Highway 116 Sebastopol bypass. Never.

Thank you,

Bill Roby
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
30 of 92
From: Lisa Pierce
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 12:54 PM
To: Mary Gourley <[email protected]>
Cc: Amie Windsor ; Laura Hagar
Subject: About Those Traffic Safety Ratings- Please share with Council & Planning Commission

Lately, we've been hearing about how dangerous Sebastopol is for pedestrians and bicyclists. (The Press Democrat wrote about this on Feb. 19th.) "In 2023, the city was ranked worst — or most dangerous — out of 74 California cities of similar size for pedestrian safety, according to the state." "The city also ranks in the bottom third for bicycle safety, with 2023 the latest year for which data was available. Sebastopol also has one of the highest collision rates on its roadways when compared to cities of similar size" This data comes from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). There are some things we should understand when looking at these rankings.

1. OTS groups all cities by population and then ranks them according to number of accidents. Cities with a population between 2,501-10,000 are in Group F. Sebastopol's latest population on the OTS website is 7,338, putting us slightly on the larger side for Group F.

Here's the problematic issue: Sebastopol's OTS accident counts include the entire area with a "Sebastopol, 95472" address, which has a population of approx. 28,000. Most cities don't have a large percentage of their population living outside their city limits. So, we are basically comparing apples and oranges.

With our entire population of 28,000 being more accurately considered, we would belong in Group D (pop. 25,000-50,000) and ranked with other larger cities in that group, since the accident data comes from the greater Sebastopol area. Our safety ranking would look quite different within Group D.

2. The other problematic issue with the TSO ranking has to do with traffic counts. Because Sebastopol has two busy highways going right through downtown, we have much more traffic than most cities with a similar population size.

For example: Calistoga has approx. 5,300 vehicles going though their town on an average day. Sebastopol has closer to 30,000. Since Calistoga is also in Group F, it's no wonder they score better than we do. Their streets are much quieter than ours. Remember, grouping is determined by population, not vehicle counts. Calistoga's population, according to OTS is 5,181. (Note: OTS uses DVMT, a different traffic count metric.

Calisoga's DVMT: 5,181. Sebastopol's DVMT: 31,020.)

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
31 of 92
So, in conclusion, the ranking from OTS can be misleading. When we compare Sebastopol, 95472 both with population (28,000) and compare traffic counts, we look better as far as safety goes. Of course, any accident is one too many, and there are always ways we can improve.

Rather than relying on TSO's ranking, the Sonoma County Transit Authority's Dashboard gives us a much clearer and more detailed understanding.

Another resource for more detailed information is the 95 page "Local Road Safety Plan" produced by the City of Sebastopol in 2023. The image below shows all traffic accidents, including pedestrian and bicycle accidents within City limits from 2015-2020. As we can see, during this time period, the majority of the accidents happened outside of the current study area in the heart of downtown.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
32 of 92
From: Lisa Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:56 AM
To: Mary Gourley <[email protected]>
Subject: FYI: 1990 Bypass Feasibility Report

Mary, please distribute to Council & Planning Commissioners. Thanks!

In case anybody has not seen this Feasibility Study from 1990, here it is. It's one of many studies done to look at the feasibility of doing one or more bypasses so traffic can avoid downtown. If we are to consider a bypass option, it's well worth looking at all the previous studies.

I think there is a growing understanding and recognition that our traffic will continue to worsen without some kind of bypass.

Thank you,

Lisa Pierce
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
33 of 92
From: mary k killian
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:05 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please do not go back to 2-way traffic downtown. Big mistake.

February 25, 2026
Dear Sebastopol City Council member,
I am a longtime resident of Sebastopol.

I want to make it known that I am against the plans / idea of returning to the 2-way traffic in our downtown.

I bought my home on Jesse Street in 1999. I do all of my shopping in town, I drive regularly through town, I walk through town. The one-way traffic in town has been a wonderful improvement. Please do not make the mistake of going back to 2-way traffic in town. Please see the letter written by Lisa Pierce that was in the Sebastopol Times recently; I fully agree with her analysis and questions; waiting for cars to turn left creates a terrible back-up. Also I have thoroughly appreciated how the one-way traffic in town supports my safety in walking and shopping downtown. And it allows me to park in front of my favorite downtown shops for the time it takes to shop. Please do not upend our city by changing the roads yet again.

Thank you,
Mary Killian
Sebastopol, CA.
95472
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
34 of 92
From: Patty Holden
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 9:23 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Traffic plan issues

City Council members,

The Planning Commission recommended the fully two-way option for downtown traffic without explaining what will happen south of Hwy 12 (Bodega Ave.). I live on Eleanor Ave and would be significantly impacted by this plan. I am unable to attend the March 3 meeting but want to share my concerns.

The problems created if two-way traffic continues south on Main St. and Petaluma Ave are:

1. If there are no turn lanes, cars turning left will quickly back up traffic.

2. Trying to cross either Main St or Petaluma Ave against two-way traffic will be very difficult and dangerous.

3. ls there really room for protected bike lanes with two-way traffic?

4. What happens to street parking that many people rely on?

5. What happens on garbage pick-up days and traffic is trying to pass the trucks against two-way traffic?
Unless these issues are addressed and resolved, it makes no sense to continue the twoway traffic pattern south of Hwy. 12. The one-way system south of Hwy. 12 should stay as it is.

I urge you to carefully consider and clarify these questions before approving the fully twoway street option south of Hwy. 12.

Thank you for your attention.

Patty Holden
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
35 of 92
From: Paul Fritz
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:15 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Jane Riley <[email protected]>
Subject: FW:�Workshop Series: Making Streets for Everyone

Hello Council Members,
In light of the Caltrans grant discussion next week, I thought some of you might be interested in the workshop below. Unfortunately it is not happening prior to the decision about the grant, but some of you may be interested as we move from planning to implementation of the plan.

Cheers,
Paul

From: America Walks <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2026 11:00 AM
To:

Subject:�Workshop Series: Making Streets for Everyone

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
36 of 92

View this email in your browser
Making Streets for Everyone: A Walkability Workshop for Elected and Government Leaders

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
37 of 92
Walkable communities are beneficial for safety, health, and the economy — but changes to streets and land use can spark debate and resistance...

Making Streets for Everyone is a new virtual workshop series designed to give elected officials and government leaders the knowledge, tools, and confidence to advance walkable, people-first communities!
Across four interactive sessions, participants will learn:
• The fundamentals of street design
• How street design impacts safety, health, and economic vitality • Policy and funding tools communities can use to implement change • How to communicate the value of walkability using real-world examples This series is designed for leaders who want to do the right thing, but may not always know the best path forward or how to build durable support. Participants will leave better prepared to advocate for policy and funding changes to build better streets for their communities.

How It Works:
• Four one-hour live sessions held every three weeks
• Pre-session readings and recorded materials provided to support deeper learning
• Led by nationally recognized experts in walkability, public health, and transportation policy
• Opportunity for discussion and Q&A
Program Details:
• Launch: March 20, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
38 of 92
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
39 of 92
Copyright © 2026 America Walks, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

America Walks PO Box 30833 Seattle, WA 98113 USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
40 of 92
From: paul l
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:03 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Traffic Study Seems Flawed

Dear City Council, We live on Bloomfield Road South of town. We have followed and did the Survey noting it did not give an option of no change at all. Reading in the Sebastopol Times it seems that the Traffic Study was in fact more of a concept of a plan with no real quantitative analysis.And would guess it is too late to ask for your money for the survey back and do a real one? Have to wonder really what this all means. But real people and real solutions seem a minimum to ask our fine CIty Sebastopol.

The Lynch Family off
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
41 of 92
From: RonPro
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2026 7:52 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment
Those of us who have been here long enough know that two way streets of bygone years, when traffic was half the quantity, was unworkable. Trying to make a left turn with oncoming traffic slows both directions. Please think about that! (The Two way switch is a very expensive repeat of a previous mess. Planning commissions sometimes can have egos with agendas, no disrespect.)
Plan:

Put one, one way bike lane, 4 ft wide on Main(east) and Petaluma Hill (west). separated from car lanes by yellow flex posts.
2 one way car lanes on Main and Petaluma Hill.

Shallow speed bumps to lower speeds. Lit pedestrian crossing walkways.

We fixed this once in 1985. This worked until oversized bike lanes robbed us of a traffic lane on Petaluma Hill.

Ron Jenkins
Ron Jenkins
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
42 of 92
Promoting Ecotourism and Green Travel
213 Elbridge Ave. #G, Cloverdale, CA 95425
www.ecoring.org
February 24, 2026
Sebastopol City Council
citycouncil@cityofSebastopol
Dear Council Members,
EcoRing is a nonprofit organization that promotes ecotourism and green travel in the North Bay.

Our Partners are businesses in the tourism industry in Sonoma, Marin and San Francisco counties. We also advocate for the infrastructure that would allow tourists to travel safely without their automobiles using rail transit and bicycle paths.

We urge the Council to convert some of the parking to attractive green spaces, bicycle parking and bus seating.

The costs of climate change have already been enormous and will increase in the future. It is mandatory that we discourage driving which produce carbon pollution while encouraging active transportation with bike parking and more off-road pathways.

Please bring this issues to the attention of all of the other Council Members. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Executive Director
or
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
43 of 92
1 City of Sebastopol
Planning Commission Staff Report
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
Agenda Item: 6A
To: Planning Commission
From: Planning Staff and Consultant
Subject: Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Grant
Recommendation: Planning Commission to review, consider, and recommend a preferred alternative to City Council, which may be one of the presented alternatives with suggested revisions or enhancements.

Introduction:

As part of the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Grant, the City has been exploring opportunities to improve mobility, safety, and economic vitality in downtown Sebastopol. The intent of the plan is to produce a plan for the downtown segments of State Route (SR) 116 and SR 12 to address safety, sustainability, accessibility, connectivity, economic development, and mobility for all transportation modes and reduce the reliance on vehicle travel, while supporting the City’s land use and housing goals.

The study area includes portions of Main Street, Petaluma Avenue, McKinley Street, and Sebastopol Avenue within the downtown zone that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Specifically, the study area includes Main Street from Burnett Street to McKinley Street, Sebastopol Avenue from Main Street to Barnes Street, Petaluma Avenue from Willow Street to McKinley Street, and McKinley Street from North Main Street to Laguna Park Way (See Figure 1 on next page).

Description:

In response to community workshops held in November 2024 and May 2025, four project alternatives were developed to address a wide range of community feedback and advance a more walkable and vibrant downtown. Tonight, the consultant team will present the four alternatives, the evaluation metrics used to score them, and a summary of community survey feedback on each option. The objective of this meeting is for the Planning Commission to recommend a preferred alternative to City Council, which may be one of the presented alternatives with suggested revisions or enhancements. The Commission–recommended preferred alternative will then be presented to the City Council in March.

Following City Council confirmation of the preferred alternative, the consultant team will prepare conceptual design plans and a draft and final report for Planning Commission and City Council’s review and adoption in April 2026 to align with the grant deadline.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
44 of 92
2 Figure 1 Study Area
Public Involvement:

Public engagement for this project has been conducted over the last 2 years and has consisted of the establishment of an interactive project website, community meetings, graphic displays at popular gathering places within the study area, and a number of surveys and meetings. As part of the most recent public outreach for the project, a survey for the community consisting of members of the public, business owners, local agency partners (Caltrans, SCTCA, Sonoma County Transit, etc.), along with members who frequent Sebastopol, was open from the beginning of January 2026 and will officially end February 8 th
, 2026. The survey for the
preferred alternative was also posted on the City’s website, the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation project page, sent out via the City’s newsletter, email announcement to local stakeholder list and full project email list, social media posts, Press Democrat, flyer distribution Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
45 of 92
3 to downtown local businesses, and published in the Sebastopol Times. The following summarizes responses as of the writing of this staff report.

Summary of Responses to Preferred Alternative Survey
The dataset reflects a large volume of survey responses in which commenters selected one of four conceptual alternatives for downtown circulation and streetscape, with many responses indicating a preference without additional explanation. Where reasoning was provided, comments focused heavily on:
• Walkability and downtown vitality
• Safety for people walking and biking
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Business access and parking availability
A recurring theme across all alternatives is frustration with existing congestion related to the Highway 12 / Highway 116 junction and skepticism that any option fully resolves regional through-traffic.

Many commenters explicitly note that Sebastopol functions as a regional crossroads, creating tension between local downtown goals and regional traffic realities.

Several commenters express concern about two-way conversions, particularly related to leftturn conflicts, emergency access, driveway conflicts, and traffic congestion, while others view two-way streets as essential for business visibility, intuitive navigation, and restoring a smalltown feel. A subset of respondents favors testing changes temporarily before committing to full build-out, citing uncertainty in traffic modeling and desire for data-driven outcomes.

Further summaries of each of the preferred alternatives are provided in Attachment 3.

Recommendation:

The objective of this meeting is for the Planning Commission to recommend a preferred alternative to the City Council, which may be one of the presented alternatives with suggested revisions or enhancements.

Attachments:

1. Alternatives Package describing proposed improvements, including what is consistent across all alternatives, and the specific differences of each alternative.

2. Potential Cross Sections for Each Alternative in Select Locations. Each subject to refinement as part of the conceptual design and future final design effort.

3. Summary of Survey Results as of Monday February 2, 2026, including a summary of written feedback shared as part of the survey.

4. Alternatives Scoring Matrix showing how each alternative compares to the existing condition. Generally, the more apples in the score, the better the alternative addresses the issue/metric.

5. Community Comments Received by Staff a compilation of all comments received by City staff related to the survey.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
46 of 92
2 3
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Since our original Downtown Plan was
created back in 1990, a lot has changed.

A VISION FOR DOWNTOWN
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
47 of 92
5 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
This study builds upon previous and
ongoing planning and design efforts,
including adopted plans, programs,
projects, and developments that together
form the set of baseline improvements
included in every alternative. Building
on this foundation, this study identifies a
suite of streetscape enhancements and
safety enhancements that will fulfill the
goal to further improve access, safety,
and mobility for people walking and
biking in and around downtown.

There are four alternative designs for
implementing these enhancements.

D
C
A
B
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

SAFETY AND STREETSCAPE

ENHANCEMENTS SHARED BY

E
F
G
H
J
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
48 of 92
6 7
Sebastopol’s central park, referred to
as “the Plaza”, sits right in the heart of
downtown Sebastopol and serves as our
community’s living room - a place where
neighbors gather for concerts, festivals,
farmers markets, and simply enjoying a
beautiful day outdoors. This green space
connects directly to our downtown shops
and restaurants, making it a natural hub for
both locals and visitors.

Large scale canopy over parking
area with food trucks similar to
Mitote Food Parks in Santa Rosa
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: THE PLAZA
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
49 of 92
8 9
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: JOE RODOTA TRAIL
The Joe Rodota Trail is an 8.5-mile paved
pathway that connects Sebastopol to
Santa Rosa, following what was once the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad corridor.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
50 of 92
10 11
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT: SEPARATED PROTECTED BIKEWAYS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT: CURB EXTENSIONS AND BULBOUTS A Class IV bikeway (separated bikeway)
is a bike lane that includes a physical
separation between the separated
bikeway and the throughvehicular traffic.

The separation may include, but is not
limited to grade separation, flexible
posts, barriers, curb, or on-street parking.

Caltrans provides design standards and
guidelines, such as Design Information
Bulletins (DIB) 89 and 94, for Class IV
bikeways.

Two-Way Lanes
Two-way separated bike lanes have both
directions of bike travel located on either
side of the street. Two-way protected
bike lanes also use physical barriers.

This improves the visibility of people at the
intersection and shortens crosswalks.

Midblock curb extensions narrow the
roadway between intersections and may
include bike cut-throughs. They are often
placed in conjunction with mid-block
pedestrian crossings.

Photo credits: Richard Drdul
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
51 of 92
12 13

EVERY ALTERNATIVE

IMPROVES SAFETY AND

COMFORT FOR PEOPLE

WALKING AND BIKING IN

AND AROUND DOWNTOWN

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
52 of 92
15 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 1: FINE-TUNE TODAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating parklet seating
bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 1
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Safety is improved through fully protected
bicycle facilities and other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through optimized signal timing
and adjustments designed to minimize
motorist delay.

2.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
TOTAL
11 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
53 of 92
17 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 2: TEST THE TWO-WAY
vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 2
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4

3.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL
14 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
54 of 92
19 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 3: WALKABLE ONE-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout large bulbout distinctive public art parallel seating parklet seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees two-row street trees bike parking
small dining parklet full dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 3
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
maintains the existing one-way circulation
pattern downtown while reducing
the number of travel lanes in each
direction. Safety is improved through
fully protected bicycle facilities shifted
entirely to Petaluma Avenue, maximizing
opportunities for wider sidewalks and
more robust streetscape amenities in the
core of downtown. Traffic operations and
overall flow are refined through optimized
signal timing and adjustments designed
to minimize motorist delay.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support

3.5 / 4

3.5 / 4
3 / 4

1.5 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

14.5 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
55 of 92
21 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 4: TOTALLY TWO-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating
bike parking
pedestrian street fair
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 4
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
bulbout seating
large bulbout distinctive public art
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
converts both Main Street and Petaluma
Avenue to two-way circulation with turn
pockets provided only where turns are
permitted. Safety is improved through fully
protected bicycle facilities consolidated
on Main Street along with other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through signal timing optimized
to the extent feasible to support efficient
traffic movement.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4
3 / 4

2.5 / 4
1 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

12.5 Key
Parking
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
56 of 92
2 3
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Since our original Downtown Plan was
created back in 1990, a lot has changed.

A VISION FOR DOWNTOWN
Parking
70' 74' 50' 60' 52'
A-AB-B C-C D-D E-E A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
57 of 92
15 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 1: FINE-TUNE TODAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating parklet seating
bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 1
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Safety is improved through fully protected
bicycle facilities and other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through optimized signal timing
and adjustments designed to minimize
motorist delay.

2.5 / 4

2.5 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
2 / 4
TOTAL
11 Key
Parking
70' 74' 50' 60' 52'
A-AB-B C-C D-D E-E A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
58 of 92
17 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 2: TEST THE TWO-WAY
vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees bike parking
small dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 2
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4

3.5 / 4

A-AB-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
59 of 92
19 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 3: WALKABLE ONE-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout large bulbout distinctive public art parallel seating parklet seating bulbout seating
narrow street trees two-row street trees bike parking
small dining parklet full dining parklet
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 3
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
maintains the existing one-way circulation
pattern downtown while reducing
the number of travel lanes in each
direction. Safety is improved through
fully protected bicycle facilities shifted
entirely to Petaluma Avenue, maximizing
opportunities for wider sidewalks and
more robust streetscape amenities in the
core of downtown. Traffic operations and
overall flow are refined through optimized
signal timing and adjustments designed
to minimize motorist delay.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support

3.5 / 4

3.5 / 4
3 / 4

1.5 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

14.5 Key
Parking
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) 70' 74' 50' 60' 52'

A-AB-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
60 of 92
21 Joe Rodota Trail
Enhancements
McKinley St
Hwy 12
Burnett St
Joe
Rodota
Trail
Abbott AvePetaluma Ave
Main St
CVS
HopMonk Chase
Tavern
The
Plaza
Whole Foods
Main St
Plaza
Improvements
ALT 4: TOTALLY TWO-WAY
planters as bike lane delineators vegetated sidewalk extension sidewalk extension with seating small vegetated bulbout
parallel seating
bike parking
pedestrian street fair
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS POSSIBLE WITH ALTERNATIVE 4
Not to scale and for illustrative purposes only.

Additional engineering analysis and coordination
will be required to determine final design.

PedestrianActivated
Flashing Beacon
Signal Stop
Sign
Bike
Station
Separated Bike Lanes
New Pedestrian Spaces
Rectangular
Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
(proposed)
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
Bus
Stop
bulbout seating
large bulbout distinctive public art
Enhances the Plaza and formalizes the
Joe Rodota Trail extension to Main Street
as part of its streetscape improvements. It
converts both Main Street and Petaluma
Avenue to two-way circulation with turn
pockets provided only where turns are
permitted. Safety is improved through fully
protected bicycle facilities consolidated
on Main Street along with other targeted
measures, including shorter turn pockets.

Traffic operations and overall flow are
refined through signal timing optimized
to the extent feasible to support efficient
traffic movement.

Downtown Vitality & Sense of Place
Access and Mobility
Safety and Comfort
Feasibility & Cost
Community Support
3 / 4
3 / 4

2.5 / 4
1 / 4
3 / 4
TOTAL

12.5 Key
Parking
A-A B-B C-C D-D E-E Main Street (south of Burnett) Main Street (north of Bodega) McKinley Street Petaluma Avenue (north of Depot) Petaluma Avenue (south of Abbot) 70' 74' 50' 60' 52'

A-AB-B C-C D-D E-E
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
61 of 92
Summary of Survey Results
As of 3pm on Monday, February 3, 2026, 196 votes have been cast on the survey. Approximately 35 percent of respondents voted for Alternative 3 (Walkable One-Way), approximately 28 percent of respondents voted for Alternative 4 (Totally Two-Way), and about 19 percent of respondents voted for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Survey Outreach and Promotion
Outreach to promote the online survey included the following activities:
• Email announcement to a local stakeholder email list
• Email announcement to the full project email list
• News article posted on the City website
• E-blasts distributed via the City website to relevant subscriber lists • Inclusion in the City’s January/February newsletter, both emailed and printer with water bill mailer
• Social media posts on City channels, including Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor • Press release distributed to local media outlets, including the Sebastopol Times and the Press Democrat
• Flyer distribution downtown and to local businesses
Overall Summary of Responses
The dataset reflects a large volume of survey responses in which commenters selected one of four conceptual alternatives for downtown circulation and streetscape, with many responses indicating a preference without additional explanation. Where reasoning was provided, comments focused heavily on:
• Walkability and downtown vitality
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
62 of 92
• Safety for people walking and biking
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Business access and parking availability
A recurring theme across all alternatives is frustration with existing congestion related to the Highway 12 / Highway 116 junction and skepticism that any option fully resolves regional through-traffic.

Critics, however, question whether through-traffic can realistically be accommodated through Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
63 of 92
reduced lanes and worry about congestion spillback, parking loss, and access challenges given Sebastopol’s role as a regional connector. Some bicycle advocates expressed skepticism about the proposed two-way cycle track on Petaluma Avenue and limited bicycle connections to Main Street.

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
64 of 92

#$
%&%'&()(*
'+%(
,-

,
.
!/
. .0
1

/2"
3 4567
89:;<==7>
;?
@A7B7A7CD78
BEA
=47
@AE@E87>
D45CF78
=E
>EGC=EGCH

3I;
CE=
@5A=<D9J5AJ?
BEC>
EB
5C?
EB
=47;H

KEC7
EB
=47
@AE@E87>
D45CF78
5>>A788
=47
DECD7AC8
G4<D4
3 5C>
E=47A8
A5<87>
5=
=47
J58=
;77=<CF
EC
=4<8
<8897H

L?
;5MEA
DECD7AC8
4567
=E
>E
G<=4
D45CF78
G4<D4
4567
76<>7C=J?
5JA75>?
:77C
5DD7@=7>N

OP
Q47
;<>R:JEDS
DAE88G5JS
:7=G77C
=47
@5AS
5C>
=47
CECR7T<8=7C=
4E=7J
<8
<C85C7H

3 D5C
ECJ?
DECDJ9>7
=45=
G4E;767A
@AE@E87>
=4<8
458
C767A
>A<67C
CEA=4:E9C>
=4AE9F4
=EGCH

Q47A7
5A7
7BB7D=<67J?
=GE
DAE88G5JS8
5=
=47
CEA=47AC
8<>7
EB
=47
<C=7A87D=<EC
EB
UG?
VW
5C>
X7=5J9;5
Y67H

X7>78=A<5C8
DAE88<CF
=E
ZDA75;<CF
L<;<I8
G<=4E9=
5C?
=A5BB<D
DEC=AEJ
;5S7
<=
><BB<D9J=
BEA
CEA=4:E9C>
=A5BB<D
=E
DJ75A
=47
<C=7A87D=<EC
58 <=
<8H

X9==<CF
5 87DEC>
9CDEC=AEJJ7>
@7>78=A<5C
DAE88<CF
;<>R:JEDS
G<JJ
DA75=7
767C
;EA7
DECF78=<EC
5C>
@AE:5:J?
:JEDS
=47
<C=7A87D=<EC
EB
UG?
VW
5C>
X7=5J9;5
Y67H

[P
Q47
<;@AE67;7C=8
=E
=47
@5AS
5A7
<JJ
DECD7<67>H

Q47
@5AS
<8
87J>E;
987>
:9=
BEA
=47
Z9C>5?
B5A;7A8I
;5AS7=\
5C>
=47
@AE@E87>
]<;@AE67;7C=8^
GECI=
<CDA7587
=47
5;E9C=
EB
987
G4<D4
=47
@5AS
F7=8H

Q47A7
5A7
67A?
B7G
75=<CF
78=5:J<84;7C=8
EC
=47
@5AS
=E
=5S7
5>65C=5F7
EB
=47
@AE@E87>
5>><=<EC5J
875=<CF\
:9=
E9A
=A5C8<7C=
5C>
9C4E987>
@E@9J5=<EC8
G<JJ
@AE:5:J?
5@@AE67
EB
=47;H

_7;E6<CF
7T<8=<CF
@5AS<CF
5AE9C>
=47
@5AS
G<JJ
;5S7
<=
767C
;EA7
><BB<D9J=
=45C
<=
5JA75>?
<8
=E
@5AS
<C
EA>7A
=E
84E@
>EGC=EGCH

`P
Q47
:<S7
J5C7
<;@AE67;7C=8
5A7
=E=5JJ?
9CC7D7885A?H

a9AA7C=J?
3 87J>E;
877
=47
:<S7
J5C78
F7==<CF
5C?
987
G45=8E767AH

a?DJ<8=8
8=<JJ
A<>7
EC
=47
8<>7G5JS
767C
=4E9F4
=47
:<S7
J5C78
G4<D4
7T<8=
5A7
85B7
5C>
565<J5:J7H

3C
F7C7A5J\
3 GE9J>
J<S7
=E
877
:E=4
L5<C
Z=A77=
5C>
X7=5J9;5
Y67
A7=9AC7>
=E
=GERG5?
=A5BB<DH

Q4<8
DE9J>
758<J?
:7
5DDE;@J<847>
:?
A7;E6<CF
=47
D9AA7C=
:<S7
J5C7
EC
X7=5J9;5
Y67
5C>
A7@J5D<CF
<=
G<=4
5 =GE
:<S7
J5C78
EC
L5<C
Z=A77=
G4<D4\
3I;
@A7==?
89A7\
458
5>7b95=7
G<>=4
=E
89@@EA=
=GE
=A5BB<D
J5C78
5C>
=GE
:<S7
J5C78H

cE9F
d9J7
eWf
X7=5J9;5
Y67\
Z7:58=E@EJ

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
65 of 92

"
#$ %#
&
'

()
$
*+*,+-.-,
/012
3
34##$#5
64##$#5" $7

84 6%59&
:
;
<=9

!6

>

9
48
>

6 6

?$!6
9
!
#
?

@#@#
$
4$#%

4
$!6

$#
$

8
>

4$#5
?>

$#
$

649

@$>
5
$#
#$#
?%

<
4#=
$!45$#

>4
4#
#9

$#
7
>

!

@
@4

477$
@$

4#>$#5

A
6

477$
84 6

#
>

@
4

$4
;
4#

#
7

4

!
$

#
>

$
#$4

4 4
864

%
<
4

4

>4
4
7
>

$!
%
B

!

>49

!
$#5
#
>

77
#

477$
464 $
4#
<=
8
$

#@
>

C#

@

4 48
5 #>

54 4#
!

D
$$#5
4 5$#5
#@>

#
5 #>

54 !$

$#
%
<=

4 9

64 7

E
<=!
4 7
!

8$ $

!

F>4

8 4
>
!

7
>

$!6
9
!
#
%
G
#
!
8$

<
49$

>

4 6

7
##

9$#5

$
#

;

9 #
47

#
8$

$#
64
;
4#
<

6

$
#$4

%
B$#

$
#$4

4 494$48

4##
;
4#

4#
5
H

48
4#@>

#
>
!;
<
74$

4 9

477$
4#

#
>

$4
%

3
;
8$

4 !48

*I
7
>

9 >$

>4
<

#
>

J/,
K$#

?
$
7$

$#7$#$

8 @

#
@

%
F>$

8 #
!77

8
>

!$

7

4$
>48$
?
D
F45

DD
F>$

!4$
>4

8 #
>

7

8
C94

4#$9$

7@4

LLLMNONPQMRST
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
66 of 92

!"#$%&
'(

)
*+*,+-.-/
01-2
34 56

%

!"#$%&
789:
7;<=>99?@
A;BCD
E9F
FGH9;I
;
GJ<DF8=
9K
LM;D
JD
JN
D9I;E
JB
DM=
N;:=
K98:;D
;N
E9F8
;HD=8B;DJO=NP
Q
<;BCD
D=HH
LM;DCN
IJKK=8=BDR
SHN9T
M9L
JN
K=;NJ>JHJDE
;BI
<9ND
:=;NF8=IT
I9
E9F
L;BD
DM=
K=L=ND
BF:>=8
9K
;GGH=N
98 DM=
:9ND
BF:>=8
9K
;GGH=NP
QD
N==:N
D9
M9O=8
>=DL==B
9B=
;BI
DL9T
LMJ<M
JN
B9D
8=;HHE
M=HGKFH
JB
FBI=8ND;BIJBU
;BEDMJBUR
VMJN
JN
;
O=8E
JB=KK=<DJO=
L;E
D9
G8=N=BD
DM=
9GDJ9BN
D9
DM=
<9::FBJDET
Q
K==H
:98=
<9BKFN=I
M;OJBU
H99?=I
;D
JDR
W=D
XYZ[\\]
^\_
`Xa
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
67 of 92

!
!"
#$%
&'&(')*)+
&),-*
./

.

0 123430
5"
637
8%
%
99

"

&:;
)*)+;

<,*<
./;

!
!"
89,
"

=
.
$!; "

>
!
89

?0933
!1
9
%
%9
3
81

!%
23

4
3

"
@133
%5
%
9
9

4

7
%1

09
%9
43
22
%
9
29

53
2
%1
87

.9%03
%
4
3
3%7
4
0

%
9
7

%9 %
A430

B
%5

!
9
922
33
971
7
%
4
3
9

%0

>C3

!
00
8

4
!9

D9
79
3 ;
303
3%7
4
937
29
939
3

3
97!
79
3

F3;
9
78
%
6GF7
29
09
3
%
0903
3

!
09
97
H9
.9

E

38
93
%9

F7

I991

J3 97
637;
"

"
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
68 of 92
Dear Planning Commission, Planning Department and City Council, I just received the updated plans for Reimagining the Core and have the following feedback.
1) It is not practical to route Bike Lanes through downtown via Main Street and Petaluma Blvd. There are simply too many cars. It is better to connect the JRT through Morris Street to Eddie Lane to the High School Road entrance to the JRT. People wanting to go downtown could go Morris Street to McKinley to the town plaza. Morris Street should become a bike and pedestrian pathway linking the JRT to the Laguna and downtown and the High School Road JRT link.
2) The plan must accommodate the 1200 students that attend Analy High School. There are easily 800 cars that come in and out of Sebastopol every single school day. This creates traffic on Highway 12, Petaluma Blvd, High School Road and Main Street.

There are new drivers and young drivers. The plan must have a safe and efficient way to move school traffic from Highway 12 and Highway 116 to Analy. 3) Move bike lanes off of Petaluma Blvd. Very few people (less than 15 per month) use the bike lanes on Petaluma BLVD. The majority of the local community supports the Apple Blossom and Gravenstien separated bike/pedestrian pathways. Use these alternatives to 116 bike lanes.
4) No bike lanes around the town square or down Main Street. There is simply too much congestion to support bike lanes. Direct bikes to Morris Street or to cross and connect with Ives. If you connect bicycles with Ives, Ives needs to have a separate bike lane from the pedestrian pathway.

Thank you,
Kate Haug
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
69 of 92

!"#!
$%# &'(&)*"#+ ",-./0
1'
232435657
2896
:;
<=#!!#'
>,"#)!
$#!!#'#,"#)!(? &-&?0 @A: !!)!.
$, !!)!.(&)*"#+ ",-./0

#
=#!B
1' !

*%
%
*##C+ &-
D
' "
+##!
*%E %C#C

'#
,%F#&
# ?- G
& !
"
%# &'

HIJKKLKMNOLPQRSTUVJTPRHRIWMRX
Y&&Z#C
'#%#[
E)'
!
CC))!
\#")!"
%
&??#!"-
]
'#
+#"B

^_``a
^bcdec
fghijkli
fgmmnhoip
qnijrkls
fggjtohkigj
uvwx
yz
{|}~wyy

¡¢£¤¥¦¤§ ¨©ª¢«£ª ¬

®¯°±²³´°µ
¶·
¯¸¹º¶µ±
»³·¼
¶½µ
¾´¶¿
·»
®µ°º±¶·¸·À
!
Á !
29B
5657B

4859
:;B
=#!!#'
>,"#)!
$#!!#'#,"#)!(? &-&?0
E%#8

#
Â
D
)"
C)**)&

#/ #
'#"#
,)!"
E)'
!E)!.

E'#'#%
!C
'E
'#
)?, &
, %)!.
!
; )!
Ã%##B
:# ?
]/#B
!C
Ä#!%
: %-
D
%#/)#E#C
'#
#!)%#
, &#B
!C
D
C)C
!
"##
!')!.
+
, %)!.-
1' !"B
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
70 of 92

!" #$%&'(

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
71 of 92

!"#$% &'(
)*+,*+-+,
).)+
/(

/!0

!0
$123!
#0"%

45 $6$!

!
7
58
9!

5
5!
3

:3!

$
56
!
!
6!
60
;
!
6<
)<

/!!
"8

!
(=
7$
$6!8

61
!;
$6
00
!
!
5
>$
2

!
? 1#

/

5;
56

$6
568
6
56
;

3 !
$6
0!
!;
$6
!
;

6
61#

61
!;
$6
!
5
60
8
;@
!
26
6!22$

!8
!;
$6!
3!$

26

610

0
5605

? 1
)),#

:

00

0
56#

72 5
5
0
8

3 "
6#
+<

A56
/!!
"
9)),
<
!
!
5!6;
2

26
2
A5
2;
00
!6;
5

!B!8
5
5!
5
605
2
!1C

/

$0
26
5

$
!
9
5!

/!!
"
6
D!0!
/ !1C<

$!6
6

($1

9)),<

26
2
$0
6!22$
5

!0#

$0
26
5
E!6

($1

)),

!1
!;
56
!6

0
!3
5
5!
5
605
2
!1#

0
F

5605
6!22$
5!
605
2
!1
6
!6
;
3 5
2#
5!
1#

7
!
5
6"1
!68

56

;1#

GHI

JKLHMNOM

PQRSNKOTOU
VJ
WXYZ[
\\\]^_`ab\cdb]efg
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
72 of 92

!
"#$"%&
'

()*+,
-.#
/0/102324
/567
89 :;
!!
<=>

!!)
=>

$%"=)">, ?@8

%
*
(

%
*$"%&
'

()*+,

;
!!A
.#

&!
%
*

B)
C!
&='
"
#

&!B
!==

#
(!D"

>) C
"

!
"#

EFGHHIHJKLIMNOPQRSGQMOEOFTJOU
V""W=
#!X
B%#

==%%

Y
%

!
">>

)
Z
#
'
A

[\]]^
[_`ab`
cdefghif
cdjjkelfm
nkfgohip
cddgqlehfdg
rstu
vw
xyz{|tv}v~

¡¢£¡¤¥¦§¨ §©ª

«¬®¯°±²
³´
¬µ¶·³²®
¸°´¹
³º²
»±³¼
´¸
«²·®³´µ´½

/¿A
2324A

4516
89A
;
!!
<=>

!!)
=>

$%"=)">,
B!5
ÀW>
!
=%
*
#

2¿Á
">(!
>
%!

=
À

%
"

!*
%

*#

">
"

!
=%
*
%)
;
!!
<=>

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
73 of 92

!"#$%$&

'(
)*)+*,-,.
/0/1
2

2$$$3

4$$$3"56#
#4%37&
8 #9$35
#449
9$
+%
:5
49

$#
9
5

$93$3
9
99#4%
;9
#<#
$93

9
#
6

9#

5 9$#
$
9
$9#$3
<

5%
($
5
69
4$3
#449
#
49$
4$$$3
669

(<
=9
;
>#$3

9
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
74 of 92

!"#
$"%
&'(
)*)+*,-,.
/0+1
23
2#!

4#! $#56774
!8%
9#
:
;
(

6<
((##
$""7

$

#"!##!
7
850
=>>?@ABBC?DEF@GHIJK?IL?GIL>DHGEB@MNJ@>G?GKOPMIEJQILILQO>=MOHGPMB?IHROFGSPOJK>MPLJ>ITM )

;
<(
8

7

#
7$#7
8
$
77<7
#

(#
$#7

U
#
7$#

),
(
4"
#7

4 #"
V"4
<

#W7

5
6 7
#!
7

4(7
#

$
77
7
;
$W
$
77
),
6 "

XYZ
7#(
6
2"

;
8

<W

$7#(
#!

"

<
(<<

(
#8

"

7$$776
(<<
7#777
#7W
#$
7(
4
#![
#W7
#$
7(
6

66#$

'
7(

"#!
(<<

47

4$

<

(
!
6

'(7(5
8#!

7[

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
75 of 92

!
"#
$

%&'
()(*)+,+-
*.(-
/0

/

"
1 2

"
1 "34!!2#15$

2

"
1 4!6
78
!
4
!
'"
1 8
!53#
9

4
8
4
8"!
!
'
1'

:#
9

8
!

'
!
85
1

!'

8
:"2

!

'
/:6
8

1!"

'
1
5

4'
"

4

!#
&"8

32!!
8

'
2'

"
1"
1

"5
0"

;#
&"8
22

!"6
4

22

'
!
!
'

#
&

'

!"
8

"8

:"5
2"
1 11#
<
4

"5!
"
'
8
='"!"
"5
2"
#>
?

'
5
1"
!
8#
<
"!

53
2!
@
!
8"
16
'
:!
4

85
"

;!2
"!
'"!"'
3
:
4
!
8

3 8
!
?

#
/

!86
243

"56
"

8!
!2!6
2!A
B!36

8
"!
8"!

=C

/>D
?!
8"!

'"
1 4
8
/ED
&

;!2

"

8
44

4
"!
5
'
1
)F

:"!!"

'

'
"

82"
1

5"
:

"!"!

"8
:

!"

'

!"
8!6
!!
"18
2"
6 '"

4
""E
!

3

82
8
2
6

'
22
""!

11
3
1!!
"

::
"3
1'
!6
82"
1 !
"!6

'
!"
1 2
8"

5
!
"

8
'

'

!2#
/!
82#
78
!
4
3

"
6

G!"
!!

;!2
!"

(HI*
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
76 of 92

!"!
#$%!"!&

'()!*)+,-$.

/!0
121324546
7834
9:
;
<!((
=*!"0
#-,
*!"0&(!%
"0+!!
),
>. ?@9)%!!
A)%

#,)%
&(!%
"0+!!
),
>.B
C%"
C'
#DD'&

'()!*)+,-$.B
E!"

F!)%"!

#!!"
&!)%"!
+""
"-,
>. GHIJKL

LMNNOPQ
IOJMRS

TUVWXYUZ
[\XYU]
^_`a_b
c_YdUW
\_Ve`UVUZ`

fUWg
Xh
i_jZkWXlXb
mGJnPPKPo
pOlZYWd_`W
qrst
uXv_wZ
xy_`z_
mi_jZkWXlXb{
fx

|}~qs
[qtq]
srq
leX`_

¡
¢
£¤¥¡¦
§¨©ª
«
¢
¬¨ªª
«
¡
®
¯¡
¡

°¡
±²³´µ¶·¸¹
ºµ»·¼½¾¿À
Á½¸ÂÃÄÅ
ÆÇÈÂ
ÃÉÅ
ÆÇÈÂ
ÃÊË
ÌÍÎÏÐ
ÑÒÑ
ÓnNÔ
ÕÖnÖLnNÔS×OIOØnÙÚoNnKJSLMNÛ ÜÝÞßÐ
àHOÖánâã
änPHn×â
åæã
çèçé
éêëë
Gì
íÎÐ
GJnPPKPo
ÕÔJnPPKPoÚLKQâMîÖOInÖQMÔMJSoMïÛ
ÜðñòÝóßÐ
pMRPQMRP
GJnPPKPo
ÑH×ïOâ

A%"
'
(

!"
"

%
)
+
D!
ô

>-
"!

+

"-
-
-!
"0
>
%
(
0ö"ö"
*!
(

ö
"-
"0
*

"-
"',
:
÷
"-
$!%

!

((

"0
+!0!)

)
0"-!
)
"0
""!
!))
',
C)
)
)

!
!)
%$!
-!"
)
)!0

0 $
"-
+

%!
(
"
0

(
+
!)ø
ö!

"
0+
-
"B

)!
"-
%!%'
*"0

!),

ù

%!
(
!!ö'
)+!!0
$!%

!)

")
*!ö!!"
%
-%ö'
"0
>
!+
!)ú>'
"!!0

*
020!)
-"!
>
!
+

"-ø
%!"
>!
$
*!
!
"!

")+

"
)
%
)
ö
"-ø
*

"-ø
)ö
>+!0)2)
!
)ø
"0
)ö
)%!),

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
77 of 92

!
"#$
%
&
' "
()*+)*,*-
./(0
12 345

"
6 75

"
6!#"89:57$6;%
<
=
>
?
5@

;8
65 A"
6

B5
5";C
A@
@

"A5$

>
5D

@

58

"
"
A8E
:

"
D
F D8

9
#

5"8
5

"
"D$
<5
C
G:57
:

5 65";
9"
5 #"5
"5"
H

>
@5

; 8

6 56

@5

#
5 6

"
#A

:"
5

((-E
5 A
:
7A "5

# "
6 "6
"
6E
5 A

@E

5
@5

:
75
9

A"6
H
I
5

@
599"#
"
7 :D5"#

6

@
E
5 A

B5
5";C
@"
A

"
6
#
5 6

5$

5 6"
6

BJK5 LM

5
45
A
C
D5
"

$

<@
D#

@"

"A5
#

"D7D
H

I

@"

5
D
8
#D
9 DH
<@

6 @"
"
5E
@
"
; 8

";
@"

#
#"

A" 7"
H

N

5
5";

A
D8
"
@
5
@"
:
5 ; 8
#8
:5"9"#5"

K"
5:

A
$
>
";
*
D"

9
@

99
9
((-$

G:57
"
D8
@
$
>
5D

95;
9
5 8
9

"A5
5

"
"D$
N
5
8E

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
78 of 92

!"#!$%&'(
)
*"
+,+-,./.0
+/1/+
23 45&
$&

!"#!$%&'(

6789:
;<=<>?
@ABC=?><DE=FGHA<
IG<=<>?J=FGHA<KL?MAANHAOP QRST:

UV<GW?LX
Y?>V?=L
Z[X
\]\^
_`[\
ab
c8:

YAM>
Y?L
Idd?LKHFCLAeG<J?GCAfABNgAhP
QijkRlT:

GC=<<C
?BC<=>?mh<G

no
pqrst

u
vowwxy
qz{
{rx
|{}xx{
~w{x}s~{ox|
|z}x
{rx
q{rx}
y~
~sy
~s{xy
{q
~yy
~
qxs{
{q

}x|qs|x

u
|xwx{xy
{rx
q{~ww
q
~
q{oqst
z{
~s{xy
{q
~yy
{r~{
u
{ros
{rx}x
|rqzwy
x
~}os
qs
~{
wx~|{
qsx
|oyx
qv
~os
{}xx{

ro|
qzwy
x
~qqy~{xy

sq{
r~os
~
xs{x}
w~sx
{rx
rqwx
wxs{r
qv
{rx
wqt
~qs
q{rx}
q{oqs|

r~s|t

x}xs~

x}xs~
qw{}~sx}o|qx
x|osx}
}r

¡¢£¤¥¦££§¢£¨
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
79 of 92
Outlook
Caltrans
From Denny Petersen <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 2:01 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Instead of revisiting the past, I suggest Caltrans fixes some potholes or repave a portion of highway 12 west of town, please
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
80 of 92

!"!#
$

%&
'()('*'+
,-).
/0

/#"

1#" 23!#1
"4$
5 67
897:;<=<;>
9::9?<@
=9
A<79BCDE
=A6FFC8
;6D<?
=GA9HEG
=9IDJ

KD>
:;6D?
6@9:=<@
L>
=G<
MC=>
?G9H;@
FCD@
8A<6=<
I6>?
=9
A<NA9H=<
=A6FFC8
IC=G9H=
A<79BCDE
;6D<?J
K=
8<A=6CD
=C7<?
9F
@6>
O?8G99;
?=6A=
6D@
?=9:P
L<ECDDCDE
6D@
<D@
9F
I9AQ
@6>RP
C=
6;A<6@>
=6Q<?
ST
7CDH=<?
=9
=A6B<;
U
7C;<?
FA97
9D<
?C@<
9F
=9ID
=9
=G<
9=G<AJ

V<79BCDE
;6D<?
IC;;
76Q<
=GC?
<B<D
I9A?<P
IGC8G
C?
@<FCDC=<;>
6 WH6;C=>
9F
;CF<
C??H<
F9A
76D>
:<9:;<P
<?:<8C6;;>
=G9?<
9F
H?
IG9
6A<
XYZ
A<=CA<@
9A
?<;FN
<7:;9><@
6D@
@9
D9=
G6B<
=G<
;H[HA>
=9
=A6B<;
=GA9HEG
=9ID
6=
9FF
G9HA?J

\9AQCDE
:<9:;<
6D@
?=H@<D=?
?G9H;@
L<
6 :AC9AC=>J
ZG<>
?G9H;@D]=
G6B<
=9
F68<
;9DE<AP
79A<
6DD9>CDE
8977H=<?
CD
9A@<A
=9
9:<D
H:

LCQ<
6D@
:<@<?=AC6D
;6D<?
=G6=
6A<D]=
<B<D
IC@<;>
H?<@J
5 6;A<6@>
FCD@
C=
6DD9>CDE
=9
?C=
CD
=A6FFC8
<B<A>
79ADCDE
=A>CDE
=9
E<=
9H=
9F
=9IDP
IGC;<
=G<
IG9;<
LCQ<
;6D<
C?
<7:=>J

5 ?CD8<A<;>
@9D]=
I6D=
=9
?<<
=GC?
CD=<D?CFC<@J

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
81 of 92

!"#$%&
'(
)
*+
,-,-,$,.
"/0.
1+

1'&

'&%'2
3
(&4)
567
89:;<=
>?@
A6B6;A
C9D
@D=6ED;C=
?>
FDG:=C?H?I
:

J9:;JD
C?
KD6A9
6;
?;
C96=
E6IDLL:M

N?
D:=O
>6PM

Q
9:BD
I6BDE
6;
FDG:=C?H?I
>?@
RS
OD:@=7
C9D
I:=C
TS
6;
C?K;M
Q
B?CDE
>?@
C9D
K:I<:GID
L?ED
GUC
6C
6=
;?C
K6C9?UC
6C=
6==UD=M

Q
C96;<
KD
;DDE
CK?
I:;D=
?;
V:6;
FCM
:;E
K?UIE
I6<D
C?
=DD
CK?
I:;D=
?;
WDC:IUL:

XBDM

Y9D;
C9D
;?@C9G?U;E
C@:>>6J
6=
:I@D:EO
G:J<DE
UH
C?
Z6@J@D=C
V:@<DC7
Q
CU@;
?;
C?
Z6@J@D=C
XBDM
?@
ZDIID@=
[:;D
C?
:B?6E
C9D
G:J<UH
C?
ADC
C?
LO
9?LD
?;
W:@\UDC
FCM

89D
G6<D
I:;D
?;
WDC:IUL:

XBDM
6=
;?C
UC6I6]DE
:;E
K9D;
Q
:JCU:IIO
=DD
:

JOJI6=C7
6C
:L:]D=
LDM

N?
H:@D;C
K?UIE
IDC
C9D6@
J96IE
U=D
C9?=D
G6<D
I:;D=M

Q
K?UIE;^CM

WIU=
C9D
G6<D
I:;D
6=
:

J?;B?IUCDE
=;:<6;A
LD==
C9:C
6=
BD@O
J?;>U=6;A
D=HDJ6:IIO
C?
?UC
?>
C?K;
B6=6C?@=M

YD ;DDE
C9D
G6<D
I:;D
?;
WDC:IUL:

XBDM
>?@
J:@=M
F6;JD
Q
I6BD
JI?=D
C?
E?K;C?K;
Q
K:I<
L:;O
HI:JD=
:@?U;E
C?K;M

Q
9:BD
DPHD@6D;JDE
C??
L:;O
JI?=D
J:II=
K6C9
C9D
C@:>>6J
E?K;C?K;
:;E
?;
:E_?6;6;A
=C@DDC=
:;E
;?C
_U=C
:C
V:6;
:;E
`?EDA:

XBDM

Q
=U=HDJC
C9D
;D6A9G?@9??E=
K6II
>DDI
C9D
G@U;C
?>
:;O
C@:>>6J
J9:;AD=
:;E
C:<D
a=9?@C
JUC=a
C?
:B?6E
E?K;C?K;M

Q
:I@D:EO
E?M

896=
K6II
L:<D
C9?=D
;D6A9G?@9??E=
L?@D
:C
@6=<
>?@
:JJ6ED;C=M

5?K
:G?UC
AD;CID
=HDDE
GULH=
6;
C9?=D
;D6A9G?@9??E=
C9:C
:@D
C9D
=9?@C
JUC=b

X;OC96;A
KD
J:;
E?
C?
=I?K
C9D
C@:>>6JM
X;?C9D@
6==UD
Q
9:BD
6=
C9D
;DK6=9
c:I6>?@;6:

BD96JID
I:K
C9:C
=:O=
J:@=
=9?UIE
;?C
H:@<
K6C96;
Td^
?>
:

JU@GM

89D@D
:@D
BD@O
>DK
@DE
H:6;CDE
JU@G=
6;
FDG:=C?H?I
C9:C
J?;>?@L
C?
C96=
I:KM

c?L6;A
E?K;
W:@\UDC
FCM7
K96J9
6=
:C
:;
:;AID
H?6;C6;A
C?
C9D
@6A9C7
6C
6=
E6>>6JUIC
C?
=DD
D6C9D@
ID>C
?@
@6A9C
>?@
?;J?L6;A
J:@=M

c:@=
:@D
H:@<DE
@6A9C
UH
C?
C9D
J?@;D@M

89D
;D6A9G?@=
:II
6;J9
?UC
=I?KIO
U;C6I
C9D@D
6=
:

JID:@
B6DKM

QC
6=
C@6J<OM

eDCC6;A
:@?U;E
C9D
=J9??I=
:C
E@?H
?>>
C6LD
6=
:
]??M

X;:IO
5F
6=
:

LD==
K6C9
=?
L:;O
J:@=
G:J<DE
UH
6;
D6C9D@
E6@DJC6?;
:;E
?;
56A9
FJ9??I
fEM

c:;
C96=
GD
:EE@D==DE
>?@
E@?H
?>>=
:;E
H6J<UH=
K6C9
C9D
=J9??Ib

5:BD
:
>I?K
?>
C@:>>6J
@:C9D@
C9:;
C9D
K6IIO
;6IIO
H:CCD@;
C9:C
DP6=C=M

Q
J?UIE
A?
?;
GDJ:U=D
Q
:L
BD@O
6;CD@D=CDE
6;
GD6;A
=:>D
K9D;
Q
K:I<
?;
:;O
=C@DDC
6;
FDG:=C?H?IM

Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
82 of 92

!
!"#
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
83 of 92
Outlook
* STG Downtown Comments for Feb. 8 deadline
From P. Dines <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 11:58 AM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Hi - I'm writing to give feedback on the new “Reimagining the Core” proposals for downtown.

I've been a Sebastopol resident for over 30 years and love this town.

AND sadly, while I appreciate the intentions, I have to vote NO to all the proposals - NO ACTION.

AND I'm disappointed that you didn't put that option on the online poll! Even though I understand that that is an option for the City Council. You FORCE people to say yes to one of them, distorting your survey, because it can look like people support one of these changes -- when they might not! There is no place for a whole group of people to respond in the survey! We're just invisible.

And, if it's too late to add that to the survey -- at least report the results of the survey honestly -- "for those who want a change, this is their preference". Or really, "when people were only given the option of these 4 proposals, this was their preference." I'm debating right now if I have to pick the least awful of these changes just to be heard in the survey. I expect others wrestled with that too!

MY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK
1) I object to all of them because they all throttle traffic even more downtown. I think that harms all businesses downtown, which are already struggling, and makes it harder for people to get there and shop. Which reduces sales tax revenues for the City at a time of its financial difficulties and already-high sales tax. And I believe downtown traffic is already at "F" level on the City's General Plan!
The change to Hwy 12 downtown that was made a few years ago -- and reduced lanes -- really clogged downtown traffic flow to this day. Making it harder to get downtown, have appointments, do shopping, etc. I don't think that doing more of that makes any sense at all.

There's just too much traffic that goes through there. It is a hub for west county. It serves many people who simply can't bike or walk into town, no matter how many lanes they give the bicyclists. I don't think now is the time to make it harder for people to get to downtown. 2) And what happens with the already difficult parking situation downtown, and how does that also reduce business downtown?
3) Add to this the expected increase in traffic from the Grocery Outlet proposal. GO brags about them bringing more people downtown! That adds to traffic and requires more parking! Already the old Rite Aid lot is full from people parking. Where are those cars going to go when that building is in use again? Can't we have a lower-volume traffic use? Just to meet current needs! But also let's not make the situation double worse!
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
84 of 92
4) I think you all must do a traffic and parking study for BOTH these proposals BEFORE voting on them again. And also do a realistic economic analysis of the ripple effects on other Sebastopol businesses of EACH and BOTH of them. (Not just the GO proposals for THEIR profit, but not the harm to others.)
I feel like some people have a vision for downtown Sebastopol that doesn't connect with the realities here. And I'd rather that be realized on paper, not in crashing business in our downtown!
Thank you for your consideration of these comments --
Patricia Dines
Sebastopol, CA
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
85 of 92
Outlook
Down town traffic plan
From [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 2:00 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Good afternoon City Planners.

In all 4 of your traffic plans it looks like you are removing a lot of parking . Parking is already in short supply downtown.

I think down town business might further suffer with the loss of close parking. Yes some people might bike more down town with better bike lanes but that is not an option for people from out of town or with disabilities.

Sincerely
Rebecca Bondhus Calley
7630 Leland St
Sebastopol
Sent from my iPad
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
86 of 92
Outlook
STG Downtown Comments
From Walter Muelken <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 1:44 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Background
I have lived in Sebastopol (city) since 1999 and until several years ago I walked everywhere (bank, drug store, library, Ives Park, etc).

Comments
Several "starters": 1) Next to pedestrian safety (and decreasing vehicle exhaust emissions), the primary concern when evaluating this realignment proposal should be the financial health of Sebastopol City government. And Sebastopol's financial health will be improved principally through increased sales and occupancy tax receipts. 2) I believe the general public "concern" with Sebastopol traffic flow is, deep down, really a concern about the quality and "sprightliness" of Sebastopol retail stores. People want Sebastopol to be a little more like Healdsburg instead of the tattoo parlors, nail salons, pizza parlors, and vacancies we seem to be specializing in.

With these "starters" in mind 1) I believe the City should do as little as possible to change the existing traffic flow. I think the worst thing that could be done would be to turn Main St. into two way. Can you imagine the delays that would be caused by cars waiting on Main St (heading south) to turn left (east) onto Sebastopol Ave. (route 12 toward Santa Rosa) if we had 2 instead of three lanes going south on Main? 2) I believe if the City or State want to improve pedestrian crossings (I think the new pedestrian crossing light to be installed on S. Main at Burnett is great), have at it. But a consideration should be maintenance costs (who is going to pay for watering and weeding the "planters"?) 3) I am all for more bicycle travel in the City. But I have seen little, if any, increase in bicycle use with the new bicycle lanes - particularly the lane on Petaluma Ave. (Under the rubric of "improving traffic flow" the City or State should delete the bicycle lanes on Petaluma Ave. and add another lane for cars - the reasons for which I am sure you have heard many, many times).

While I spent a major part of my working years figuring the best way to spend taxpayers' money (Federal Government - anti-poverty, environmental protection) I do not think the City should adopt the view that State money is "free". The City should be good stewards of all "public" funds and carefully consider the "return" for citizens.

Thanks for the time you all spend on this venture.

Walter Muelken
https://waltermuelken.smugmug.com/
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
87 of 92
Outlook
Re: One-Way vs. Two-Way Downtown: att: Paul Fritz
From Diana Badger <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 4:00 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Hi Paul,
[Diana here, from the piano world!]
I’m studying the alternatives for downtown. My primary concern is as someone who regularly drives home from places north of town, to my home on the south of town. When I come through Main Street, I always choose to line up for the light at Hwy 12 and Main in the middle of the three lanes, because cars in the right lane that are going straight usually have to wait quite a while for those turning right, who have to wait for pedestrians to cross.

So for me, any option that would remove the 3 lanes from Main Street seems not feasible as it would slow traffic down a lot for people who just want to flow south. Even with a “turn pocket” for those turning onto Hwy 12 (which I note is mentioned in #2 and #4, but not #3), it seems that cars not in the only other, left turn, lane would frequently be backed up behind cars wanting to turn right (as they wait for pedestrians). Often there is more than one car that wants to turn righ, so there can be quite a wait (depending of course on time of day). So it seems to me this would stop the whole traffic flow north to south pretty frequently and it could back up even further than it sometimes does (past Safeway).

Quite a few years ago I figured out this ‘traffic hack’ for myself, and think it would just add to the backup and congestion, if those of us hip to the fact that it’s smarter to choose the middle lane could no longer do so.

Maybe you have something designed that would deal with this issue - great! - but I couldn’t find it mentioned. I’d appreciate knowing about it, if so!
Thanks for your work for our town!
Diana Badger
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
88 of 92
Outlook
STG Downtown Comments
From Jerry Newman <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 4:58 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Comments on survey choices:

I voted for option #3 with two concerns:
the lack of a dedicated left turn lane onto Hwy 12 could create a traffic slowdown as the current dedicated left turn lane is often backed up and several light changes are sometimes required before one can turn on to Hwy12. Is there a way to modify #3 to dedicate a left turn lane? The lack of bike access to main street could create problems for those on bikes who wish to access the business on Main and makes it difficult for those continuing south bound.

Only Plan one address those issues, while plan 3 does create a more opportunity for businesses.

Jerry Newman
--
Jerry Newman
Home: (707) 829-1388
Mobile: (707) 291-1141
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
89 of 92
Outlook
STG Downtown comments
From Katy Baumgras <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/4/2026 10:52 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
I suggested changing 116 to two way but leaving Petaluma Hill Road one way and changing it back to two lanes and having a narrower bike lane like on the southbound road. Or the sidewalk on the East side could become a bike/ multi-use trail for bikes and pedestrians while faster bikes could be with the car traffic. And it could be two way, like the Joe Rodota Trail. Pedestrians could have the West side of the street. I ride my electric bike often in town, and I can go 25 mph to keep up with traffic if needed. I would like to see a bike charging station with a 110 outlet for electric bikes to use. I hope the traffic signals will be improved for the main northbound intersection.

Sincerely,
Katherine Baumgras
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
90 of 92
Outlook
STG Downtown Comments
From Robert van de Walle <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2/5/2026 9:33 AM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Hello,
I'm very disappointed that the "experts" haven't presented a solution for traffic obstruction at the driveway for Whole Foods. This single curb cut creates a hazard for everyone using this intersection.

This driveway must be moved such that vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot cannot obstruct this intersection.

In addition, let's have some forethought about NB traffic turning into the new Grocery Outlet location.

Again, this will be very close to an intersection and will likely lead to poor choices by drivers.

Robert van de Walle (dwelling on Pomo land)
Making People-Powered Fun
https://threefeetofair.wordpress.com/
(510)388-7521
P.S., if you haven't already signed up to get updates on Trashlantis, why not? Click to bounce over to Mailchimp
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
91 of 92
Outlook
two way
From Dr. S Garcia <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2/5/2026 12:42 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>
Thank you for taking my e-mail and undertaking this project. I think evaluating the two way is a promising idea and no matter what happens keeping the traffic light at the corner of McKinley Ave. and Main St. This is a busy intersection, and it only gets busier with pedestrians and truck traffic so for safety's sake keeping a traffic light at this location no matter what the outcome would be a positive development. Given the scope of this project, it is regrettable that 45° parking was not introduced on Main Street. Parallel parking always slows down the flow of traffic, and 45° parking increases the availability of precious space. If you are truly serious about making a positive outcome, stand on any Main Street corner for one hour and count the cars and then count the bikes. Now divide the number of cars into the number of bikes and that will give you the percentage of resources that should be dedicated to bicycles. Finally, as a heads up, no one from your project has come into our business in the Columbia Bank /Whole Foods shopping center and inquired about your project and our thoughts. I hope that we were just overlooked but that you are surveying the downtown business community.

Steve Garcia, MBA
Agenda Item Number: 9 Agenda Item Number: 9
City Council Meeting Packet of: March 3, 2026
92 of 92

Sebastopol City CouncilMarch 3, 2026

Sebastopol City Council
March 3, 2026